Mumbai Court November 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Srikant Vinayak Harsha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT229(Bom)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Rummaging and Intelligence, Bombay, against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Courts, Esplanade Bombay, on 12th July 1982, in Case No. 35/CW of 1980. The accused, four in number, were charged with offence under Section 5 of the Import and Exports (Control) Act and Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act. The charge was that on 15th March 1977, the Respondents along with accused No. 1 Bhatia (who has been absconding since the date of the offence) attempted to export out of India, 17 reels of a feature film 'Geeta Mera Naam' valued at Rs. 13,000/- without an export licence and thereby committed breach of Export (Control) Order. They were also concerned in a fraudulent evasion of the prohibition imposed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act which is also punishable under Section 135(i)(ii) of the Customs Act. The prosecution case has been stated in detail by the learned...
S.G. Rajadhyakshya, Ac Customs Vs. Srikant Vinayak Harsho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1992(39)LC267(Bombay)
R.G. Sindhakar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Rummaging and Intelligence, Bombay, against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on 12th July 1982, in Case No. 35/CW of 1980. The accused, four in number, were charged with offences under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act. The charge was that on 15ih March 1977, the Respondents along with accused No. 1 Bhalia (who has been absconding since the dale of the offence) attempted to export out of India, 17 reels of a feature film 'Geeta Mera Naam' valued at Rs. 13,000/- without an export licence and there by committed breach of Export (Control) Order. They were also concerned in a fraudulent evasion of the prohibition imposed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act which is also punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act. The prosecution case has been stated in ...
Anand G. Joshi Vs. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR712; [1991(62)FLR909]; (1994)IIILLJ1077Bom; 1991(1)MhLj915
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned award part I dated 28th October, 1987 of the 3rd Labour Court, Bombay. 2. The Petitioner joined the services of the 1st Respondent Corporation as Assistant Manager (Technical) on or about 18th November 1980. He was transferred to Goa sometime in the beginning of the year 1984. He challenged the transfer order by filing Writ Petition No. 432 of 1984 in this Court which was dismissed. Appeal there against was also dismissed. Thereafter he joined duty at Goa on 16th May, 1984. It appears that he developed some kind of renal colic in or about October 1984. He was under the treatment of one Dr. Mrs. Fonseca M.D. in Goa. In the first instance he applied for transfer back to Bombay on health grounds. Failing which he applied for leave with or without pay. However without waiting for the sanction of leave, he remained at Bombay during the pe...
Mahalaxmi Chemicals Works Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR73; 1991(1)MhLj479
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged Municipal Circular No. AC/23/OCT/89-90 dated 6th October 1989 denying 'N' Form facility to the Bombay based importers and thus denying the benefit of octroi exemption. By this circular, the staff working at the Octroi Work Centres was directed not to allow exemption from octroi under 'N' Form to Bombay-based importers. The petitioners in this petition and in companion petitions have challenged the validity of the said circular on the ground that the said circular has been issued by the concerned respondents without authority of law and the petitioners are considerably prejudiced thereby. A copy of the said circular is annexed to the petition as Exhibit-'A'.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this petition are as such:---(a) The petitioners carry on business as merchant-exporters. The petitioners carry on business in Bombay. The petitioners obtain ord...
industrial Workers' Union Vs. Allied Publishers Subscriptions Agency a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR8
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner is a trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, representing the workmen employed with respondent No. 1, a partnership firm. The petitioner-union has impugned Award Part III made by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 48 of 1983 in so far as the said award pertains to the respondent No. 1 and its employees. By the impugned part of the said Award, certain demands made by the workmen of respondent No. 1 were rejected.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, are as under:---3. (a) On 29th May, 1981, the petitioner-union served its Charter of Demands on respondent No. 1 as well as a company known as Allied Publishers Private Limited raising various demands. By the said Charter of Demands, the workmen sought (1) revision of wage scales, (2) classification, (3) adjustment, (4) dearness allowance, (5) house rent allowance, (6) leave travel concession, (7) educational allowance, (8) cycle all...
Eagle Spring Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, bearing No. GSM 1314/89-BRD dated 20-6-1989, rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. Brief facts of the case for purpose of disposal of the appeal are that - the appellants are manufacturers of spring assemblies. They had furnished a declaration for availment of the modvat credit in respect of the quantity of the finished product declaring the input as 'leaves for spring' (steel flat), indicating Tariff Heading 7308.60. However, in respect of some of the inputs received by them, the Tariff Heading of the input has been indicated as 7209.20. The Department alleged that they had received the inputs under Tariff Heading 7209.20, which was not declared by them as per the modvat declaration referred to above.In the proceedings initiated by the Asstt. Collector, modvat credit, in respect of such inputs received under Tariff heading of the inputs 7209.20 was denied and demand for an amount of Rs. 1...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1993)LC38Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the stay application as well as the appeal are directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay bearing No. ADN-736/90.B.I. dated 25-7-1990 allowing the appeal of the respondents.2. Since it was urged that the issue involved in the stay application as well as in the appeal is one and the same, both the parties urged for hearing the appeal itself. Hence, we take up the appeal itself for hearing.3. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: Respondents herein, who are manufacturers of motor vehicles, are liable to pay automobile cess imposed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with the provisions of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. They also export the motor vehicles. They claimed rebate of cess paid on the motor vehicles exported, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector (Refunds) on the ground that the cess is not allowed rebate under the Notif...
Smt. Sitabai Mangesh Koli Vs. Jonvel Abraham Soloman and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ933; AIR1991Bom287
1. This First Appeal by theoriginal plaintiff raises some short question of law arising under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 in the following facts of the case :--2. The plaintiff/appellant is the mother of deceased Prakash Mangesh Shivdikar, who was travelling in the Auto-Rickshaw No. MHT 6265, which was proceeding towards Thane on the Pune -- Thane Road on 12th May 1974, at about 6.00 a.m. A motor truck bearing No. MEL 4771 was coming from Thane and was proceeding towards Pune. The respondents in the Appeal are the original defendants. The 1st defendant Solomon was driving the Auto-Rickshaw at the relevant time; the 2nd defendant Bamane is admittedly the owner of the Auto-Rickshaw and the 3rd defendant is the Indian Mercantile Insurance Co. Ltd., which is the insurer of the vehicle. As a result of the negligent driving of the 1st defendant, Solomon, the auto-rickshaw dashed against the motor truck coming from the opposite direction and Prakash, the son of the appellant/plaintiff, died i...
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Leidomann Heinrich ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR173; (1990)92BOMLR583; 1991CriLJ552; 1991(1)MhLj311
ORDERThese two Criminal Applications can be, conveniently, disposed of by a common judgment. Reference to the parties would, however, be as in Criminal Application No. 1614 of 1990 preferred by the Original Accused.1. Briefly, the facts are that on 10th of March, 1989, while the Applicant/Accused was in the process of boarding the Swiss Air Flight for Zurich from Sahar Airport, Bombay, he was intercepted and his baggage was searched by the Customs Department. From his baggage, the Department recovered 2.500 Kgs. brown powder, i.e. Hashish valued at Rs. 25,000/-. The Applicant/Accused was produced before the learned Magistrate, and later on the Assistant Collector of Customs filed a case against him under S. 8(c) r/w. Ss. 20, 23, and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short 'N.D.P.S. Act') and u/S. 135 of the Customs Act.2. The Applicant/Accused was arrested on 10-3-89. However, the chargesheet was not filed against him within a period of 90 days, i.e. u...
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Leidomann Heinrich
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT224(Bom)
1. These two Criminal Applications can be, conveniently, disposed of by a common judgment. Reference to the parties would, however, be as in Criminal Application No. 1614 of 1990 preferred by the Original Accused.2. Briefly, the facts are that on 10th of March, 1989, while the Applicant/Accused was in the process of boarding the Swiss Air Flight for Zurich from Sahar Airport, Bombay, he was intercepted and his baggage was searched by the Customs Department. From his baggage, the Department recovered 2.500 Kgs. brown powder, i.e. Hashish valued at Rs. 25,000/-. The Applicant/Accused was produced before the learned Magistrate, and later on the Assistant Collector of Customs filed a case against him under section 8(c) r/w. Sections 20, 23 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short 'N.D.P.S. Act') and under Section 135 of the Customs Act.3. The Applicant/Accused was arrested on 10-3-89. However, the chargesheet was not filed against him within a period of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »